Axanar - Crowdfunded 'Star Trek' Movie Draws Lawsuit from Paramount, CBS

I still think AP is probably just more crooked than anyone believed.

If we assume his exposing himself to prosecution (by putting his own name on the script) was just a mistake, then what other delusional behavior does that leave? Pretty much everything else could fall under the realm of convincing the donating fans to keep sending in cash. He probably figured he had nothing to lose. Maybe the whole thing would embarrass Paramount into letting him do something (either a whole movie or just some other form of work). Maybe the exposure would indirectly land him some other creative deal. Etc.


There was probably some delusional thinking involved. But simple mistakes and plain old crookedness would cover the majority of it IMO.

Aside from the personal prosecution, he could have reasonably predicted that this whole mess would end up as: He gets a bunch of donated money to play with for a while - he has some fun - he might possibly get some creative project off the ground - at worst he just makes himself a martyr in the eyes of his fans if it gets crushed (after he's been living off the cash for a while). Money and fun to gain, nothing to lose.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, just because he's a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean that he knows or understands copyright law; with so many different specialties within the law field there's no way that being a lawyer in one area of the law would necessarily give you an understanding of another part of the law, esp. with something as byzantine as copyright law.
I wouldn't call it byzantine by any stretch, but that's neither here nor there. Peters didn't do this out of ignorance of the law, not by a long shot. We're trained from the first year of law school to spot legal issues in fact patterns -- in other words, given these facts, identify the legal implications. Every law school exam and every state bar (and the multi-state exam) is designed to test students and lawyers on their ability to spot the legal issues in a given set of facts, and suggest possible solutions.

You can't even graduate from law school without this basic skill seared into your genome, let alone pass the bar.

Given that the purpose of the entire business was to create a "fan film" based on property he knows he doesn't own, there is flatly no way he didn't understand the risks going in and their severity. If it were me, and copyright wasn't my area, I'd damn well research it. Because any law school graduate is smart enough to know what she doesn't know, and to make it her business to find out.

The whole reason I'm so puzzled is because of how well I know that he had to know better, and yet plowed ahead anyway.
 
I Given that the purpose of the entire business was to create a "fan film" based on property he knows he doesn't own, there is flatly no way he didn't understand the risks going in and their severity. If it were me, and copyright wasn't my area, I'd damn well research it. Because any law school graduate is smart enough to know what she doesn't know, and to make it her business to find out.

The whole reason I'm so puzzled is because of how well I know that he had to know better, and yet plowed ahead anyway.

Well, plaintiffs are certainly pointing to the fact that he is an attorney – and so should know better – as evidence of the "willfulness" of his infringement (a finding of willfulness leads to increased damages.)

And while it is a good point that not every lawyer knows every area of law – though ASA makes a correspondingly good point that every lawyer should be able to spot certain issues and pull in someone who DOES know the area of law - I have to believe that Peters does have more than a passing familiarity with copyright law.

First of all, he supposedly made whatever money he has by starting and then selling a technology company based specifically around a software solution; you can't make money as a technology entrepreneur without understanding the value of intellectual property, what it is, and how to protect it and monetize it. Second, he was aiming for a career in the field of film and TV production – again, more than a basic understanding of intellectual property rights is needed for that field, especially since so much of it revolves around buying and selling intellectual property rights in the works being produced . Finally – and incredibly ironically, given the situation – he himself recently threatened to sue anyone who leaked a copy of his Axanar script. So, yeah, he is familiar with what copyright is and what it protects.

M
 
Well, plaintiffs are certainly pointing to the fact that he is an attorney – and so should know better – as evidence of the "willfulness" of his infringement (a finding of willfulness leads to increased damages.)

And while it is a good point that not every lawyer knows every area of law – though ASA makes a correspondingly good point that every lawyer should be able to spot certain issues and pull in someone who DOES know the area of law - I have to believe that Peters does have more than a passing familiarity with copyright law.

First of all, he supposedly made whatever money he has by starting and then selling a technology company based specifically around a software solution; you can't make money as a technology entrepreneur without understanding the value of intellectual property, what it is, and how to protect it and monetize it. Second, he was aiming for a career in the field of film and TV production – again, more than a basic understanding of intellectual property rights is needed for that field, especially since so much of it revolves around buying and selling intellectual property rights in the works being produced . Finally – and incredibly ironically, given the situation – he himself recently threatened to sue anyone who leaked a copy of his Axanar script. So, yeah, he is familiar with what copyright is and what it protects.

M
Especially since software source code is protected by copyright specifically.
 
The whole thing could have been an attempt to pad his portfolio. Not to mention putting the media spotlight on him and his work.
Yeah, it certainly looks like he was planning to parlay this into a high-profile producing career with his own studio. Talking about building on a foundation of sand... :facepalm
 
Big-budget filmmaking can burn through $1.5m in a heartbeat. But just a few individuals? Who didn't produce much of anything? That's a different story.

All the stuff mentioned in this thread that supposedly consumed all the money . . that sounds more like $0.5m than $1.5m to me. If even than much. IMO there might be $1m unaccounted for that went into AP's control and disappeared.


AP's account of where the money went needs to be scrutinized and verified. Like, VERY, VERY CAREFULLY. If AP knew this project would go down in flames from the start then he was probably working to disappear as much money as possible from the start. I mean, with his history of behavior, he was probably trying to rake off as much as he could even if he did expect the movie to get made.
 
Last edited:
producers_edit-1200x653.jpg
 
I wouldn't call it byzantine by any stretch, but that's neither here nor there. Peters didn't do this out of ignorance of the law, not by a long shot. We're trained from the first year of law school to spot legal issues in fact patterns -- in other words, given these facts, identify the legal implications. Every law school exam and every state bar (and the multi-state exam) is designed to test students and lawyers on their ability to spot the legal issues in a given set of facts, and suggest possible solutions.

You can't even graduate from law school without this basic skill seared into your genome, let alone pass the bar.

Given that the purpose of the entire business was to create a "fan film" based on property he knows he doesn't own, there is flatly no way he didn't understand the risks going in and their severity. If it were me, and copyright wasn't my area, I'd damn well research it. Because any law school graduate is smart enough to know what she doesn't know, and to make it her business to find out.

The whole reason I'm so puzzled is because of how well I know that he had to know better, and yet plowed ahead anyway.

Surely, you must have encountered some attorney who, for reasons you simply cannot explain, managed to graduate law school and pass the bar, yet evinces zero mastery of the law on any level. Even within my field, I've come across people who VERY FIRMLY assert positions that are just flat-out wrong on the law. Like, blackletter issues, too. "The regulation requires XYZ." No. No, it doesn't. You're just...wrong. And yet, here we are, debating the whole thing. Sigh.

Well, plaintiffs are certainly pointing to the fact that he is an attorney – and so should know better – as evidence of the "willfulness" of his infringement (a finding of willfulness leads to increased damages.)

And while it is a good point that not every lawyer knows every area of law – though ASA makes a correspondingly good point that every lawyer should be able to spot certain issues and pull in someone who DOES know the area of law - I have to believe that Peters does have more than a passing familiarity with copyright law.

First of all, he supposedly made whatever money he has by starting and then selling a technology company based specifically around a software solution; you can't make money as a technology entrepreneur without understanding the value of intellectual property, what it is, and how to protect it and monetize it. Second, he was aiming for a career in the field of film and TV production – again, more than a basic understanding of intellectual property rights is needed for that field, especially since so much of it revolves around buying and selling intellectual property rights in the works being produced . Finally – and incredibly ironically, given the situation – he himself recently threatened to sue anyone who leaked a copy of his Axanar script. So, yeah, he is familiar with what copyright is and what it protects.

M

One of the key things you learn as an attorney is what you DON'T know, and when to hand things off to someone who knows better. If Peters didn't know, he should have known enough to realize that fact, and passed the issue on to knowledgeable counsel. If he DID know, then he's just a ******* who willfully infringed copyrights.

Big-budget filmmaking can burn through $1.5m in a heartbeat. But just a few individuals? Who didn't produce much of anything? That's a different story.

All the stuff mentioned in this thread that supposedly consumed all the money . . that sounds more like $0.5m than $1.5m to me. If even than much. IMO there might be $1m unaccounted for that went into AP's control and disappeared.


AP's account of where the money went needs to be scrutinized and verified. Like, VERY, VERY CAREFULLY. If AP knew this project would go down in flames from the start then he was probably working to disappear as much money as possible from the start. I mean, with his history of behavior, he was probably trying to rake off as much as he could even if he did expect the movie to get made.

That strikes me as a separate issue, which isn't really relevant to the matter of copyright infringement. However, if the kickstarter backers decided to file a fraud lawsuit against him, they might have a case, and would probably end up having to do some discovery, maybe involving some forensic accounting, to show where the money went.
 
Surely, you must have encountered some attorney who, for reasons you simply cannot explain, managed to graduate law school and pass the bar, yet evinces zero mastery of the law on any level. Even within my field, I've come across people who VERY FIRMLY assert positions that are just flat-out wrong on the law. Like, blackletter issues, too. "The regulation requires XYZ." No. No, it doesn't. You're just...wrong. And yet, here we are, debating the whole thing. Sigh.
That's been exceedingly rare. More often, I encountered experienced attorneys who were simply bluffing, stating false positions in the hope that I'd believe them and get discouraged. What I'm saying is Peters doesn't get off the hook on grounds of constructive knowledge likely to be imputed by the court.

One of the key things you learn as an attorney is what you DON'T know, and when to hand things off to someone who knows better. If Peters didn't know, he should have known enough to realize that fact, and passed the issue on to knowledgeable counsel. If he DID know, then he's just a ******* who willfully infringed copyrights.
Exactly what I was after, but I'm not always as clear as I think I am.



That strikes me as a separate issue, which isn't really relevant to the matter of copyright infringement. However, if the kickstarter backers decided to file a fraud lawsuit against him, they might have a case, and would probably end up having to do some discovery, maybe involving some forensic accounting, to show where the money went.
I'm hoping there's a class action -- some of the donors are well off enough to litigate it, but a class action would be more efficient and have greater impact. I agree that there's grounds for a fraud suit, definitely.
 
I realize that misappropriated Kickstarter money is not Paramount's issue.

But Paramount is going to bend him over as best they can. Their lawsuit may leave him especially vulnerable to other legal attacks.


What if AP argues that he was forced to spend the donors' Axanar money on the legal battle with Paramount? How well does that hold up, as far as appropriate use of the donated funds? I am not familiar with the legal ins & outs of Kickstarters.
 
I realize that misappropriated Kickstarter money is not Paramount's issue.

But Paramount is going to bend him over as best they can. Their lawsuit may leave him especially vulnerable to other legal attacks.


What if AP argues that he was forced to spend the donors' Axanar money on the legal battle with Paramount? How well does that hold up, as far as appropriate use of the donated funds? I am not familiar with the legal ins & outs of Kickstarters.
You're absolutely right about his vulnerability. I suspect his legal troubles have only just begun.

The legal expenses argument, though, would not fly. Unless the terms of Kickstarter's donation agreement say "I get to spend the money on me instead of what I said you're paying for," AP's screwed.

Moreover, the lawsuit 's allegations concern his use of the funds before the suit was filed, so, leaving aside the fact that Peters' representation is pro bono, the timeline doesn't work.

As a general matter, the law won't let a wrongdoer use the expense of his legal defense as an excuse not to pay restitution to his victims. Even filing bankruptcy won't help him if the wrongdoing is found by the court to have been willful (which seems likely in this case).

What would matter in a fraud suit by his donors is what he said he would do with the money -- make a Star Trek film -- versus what he actually did with it -- lavish meals, world travel, car repairs, health insurance. Getting someone to give you money based on a materially false representation is fraud, plain and simple.

It's possible (even likely) that there's some sort of liability waiver or hold-harmless clause in the Kickstarter TOS, but I'd expect those to protect Kickstarter, not Peters. In other words, you agree not to sue Kickstarter if Peters rips you off.

Tha reminds me, I gotta wash my popcorn popper. :p
 
True. AP cannot argue that he spent his cash defending himself once a judge gives Paramount an award.


But in regards to the (potential) CA fraud suit from the Kickstarter donors -


Has all of Paramount's legal action been exclusively directed at AP, though? Not directed at the movie (corp) itself?

This legal battle has been going on all year. It started over the question of allowing the movie to be made. The studio focused their efforts against AP when he wouldn't back off.

If the earlier part of the battle had technically been taking place between Paramount and the Axanar corporate entity, then that would seem to open up the door for AP to claim it was a legit use of Axanar's funds to fight the studio.



I guess none of this makes a big difference. Most of the "spent" funds cannot be explained by legal costs no matter how AP spins it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not 100% clear, but, the way I understand Kickstarter's TOS, is that if the project is funded, all that is required is that you have to provide the backer rewards. Granted, I've never seen rewards that didn't, at some tier, include the product, and I don't know what Axanar's reward tiers were, but even if he did spend the money on himself, as I understand it, he's not violating Kickstarter's TOS and is protected from legal action by the backers as long as he provides their promised rewards.

WA's Attorney General actually brought a lawsuit against Kickstarter, because a project was funded, and the backers never got their rewards.
 
I'm not 100% clear, but, the way I understand Kickstarter's TOS, is that if the project is funded, all that is required is that you have to provide the backer rewards. Granted, I've never seen rewards that didn't, at some tier, include the product, and I don't know what Axanar's reward tiers were, but even if he did spend the money on himself, as I understand it, he's not violating Kickstarter's TOS and is protected from legal action by the backers as long as he provides their promised rewards.

WA's Attorney General actually brought a lawsuit against Kickstarter, because a project was funded, and the backers never got their rewards.

Not exactly correct - under Kickstarter's TOS, there is an obligation to both complete the project and to fulfill rewards, If hey don't do both, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Furthermore, there is an obligation to use funds "appropriately". Relevant excerpts:

When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers . . . If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement.

"A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:

[SNIP]
they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;

Finally, an acknowledgement that failure to comply with all of these terms (complete project, deliver rewards, use funds appropriately) could lead to legal action by the donors:

If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.

M
 
That wording probably leaves enough room to bust AP for misusing Kickstarter funds.

It will at least be possible for the donors to file a case. And after Paramount gets through with AP he will probably not have the resources (or the credibility) to fight off more legal action very well.
 
Last edited:
The Kickstarter donors just need to get together and hit AP in a state with an unlimited majority-win civil suit policy. They would have a good chance of nailing him.
 
The Kickstarter donors just need to get together and hit AP in a state with an unlimited majority-win civil suit policy. They would have a good chance of nailing him.
You would need the donors to want to sue him. His supporters and backers seem to have his back. They do not blame him and think the studio is the one crossing any lines by suing a fan.
 
True. The supporters have not shown any overt displeasure with him yet AFAIK.

But that may change as more stuff comes out. I have a hard time imagining that there won't be pissed off donors.


1. AP used a lot of Kickstarter money on himself.

2. He collected it under different pretenses.

3. I think AP always expected the movie to get shut down. It might become more apparent as his finances get dragged out in the open.

The donors might excuse one or two of those things. But all three at once is adding up to something pretty crooked.




Everyone has been looking at this whole Axanar project for months/years and saying, "How in the hell does AP think the studio would possibly allow this?!? He's got a legal background and everything!"

Maybe AP never did think they would allow it.

Hypothetically, if AP really had been trying to provoke the studio into shutting Axanar down all along, what would he have done differently? I can't think of anything. Look at how blatant is statements have been about his intentions to plunder the studio's IP.
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top